Skip to main content

View Diary: Guess why the Army's top sexual assault prosecutor's been suspended (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not sure it's the liquor (8+ / 0-)

    though personally, I dislike being around drunk people.

    It's partially about an unhealthy culture when it comes to sex and romantic relationships, sort of like the Catholic Church in some ways, at least in terms of the prohibitions on normal sexuality.  Men and women work together (or men and men, or women and women) and they are prohibited from having sex, and they work in situations in which normal life is often impossible or compromised.  So things get distorted.

    That, of course, is only part of it. The other part, perhaps the more important causal factor, is the aggressive and hierarchical attitude that sometimes comes with military training and culture, applied to the extremely unnatural circumstances of military life.

    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

    by ivorybill on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 02:09:30 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ivorybill

      Our culture has a really fucked up view of sex and romance, and it's not just men.

      The guy in the diary is obviously an idiot and a pig, but honestly, it seems like he didn't rape anyone -- just made an awkward and highly inappropriate pass.  If I were prosecuted for every time I did that, I would be in jail for sure.  But I've never raped anyone, never hurt anyone, never taken it further than a rebuffed kiss.

      The culture we live in puts men and women together in situations where hotels and booze are involved but frowns on sex in such situations.  It's just weird.

      They tell me I'm pretty amusing from time to time working with 140 characters or less.

      by CharlieHipHop on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:25:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's why he's being investigated (4+ / 0-)

        for sexual assault, not rape or attempted rape. If she clearly said "no" and he continued his actions, that's sexual assault; if your partner said "no" and you stopped, that's better luck next date, pal.

        Going to a man's hotel room at a convention should not be assumed as an invitation for the horizontal tango -- it could be just a chance to discuss the events of the day or even watch the late night SportsCenter.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:54:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Lot's of drunk people make bad passes. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        howabout, LSophia, DSPS owl, JuliathePoet

        AND there are no sexual assault charges brought. Some line was crossed here for her to make that assertion.

        The guy's supposed to be an expert on this topic. I give him zero leeway.

        "You don't have to be smart to laugh at fart jokes, but you have to be stupid not to." - Louis CK

        by New Jersey Boy on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:26:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  assuming (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CharlieHipHop

          she's telling the truth.  It's an allegation under investigation, until the process completes, the prudent course would be to be neutral.

          •  Thanks for the advice, counselor. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DSPS owl, JuliathePoet

            The prudent course would be to remain neutral if this were a court or law, or if I had any responsible role in the case.

            Since I don't and I am just basically typing my thoughts on a website (as you are), I am uninhibited by such proscriptions.

            Here's my thought process: I AM assuming she's telling the truth.

            They're both lawyers. They both know what a headache this is going to be. She is going to be castigated as a slut and she knew that going into it, and yet she still sought to file charges.

            There is no good outcome for her. Even if she wins the case, she'll be ostracized and outcast within the military. This case will follow her and be attached to her every professional interaction. The only motive I can assume would drive her to do this is striving for a some version of justice.

            If you want me to not assume she's telling the truth, put forth a reasonable possible motive for lying.

            It might still be considered prudent to share your non-neutral thoughts here - it's just an anonymous internet comment. It won't result in a mistrial.

            "You don't have to be smart to laugh at fart jokes, but you have to be stupid not to." - Louis CK

            by New Jersey Boy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:58:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no one has (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              New Jersey Boy

              "castigated her as a slut." every conversation I've had with other JAGs on this issue is the exact neutral approach I've identified...let the process find out the facts first.

              If you want to assume based on facts, that would be logical, that you assume based on no facts is not logical, inside or outside a court of law.

              I want you to NOT assume anything one way or the other, but clearly you aren't willing to do that.  I don't have any "non-neutral" thoughts because:

              1. I don't know the facts of the allegations
              2. I don't know her at all (although I might if it is who I think it might be--although even then, I wouldn't know her enough to fairly judge her credibility).
              3. I know him, and his reputation-which is stellar, but not personally enough to know what he is or is not capable of since reputation does not always equal reality.

              As the facts are revealed THEN I may make some assumptions that are "non-neutral" one way or the other, but the only fact now is a bare accusation.

              There is no positive outcome for him either, even if acquitted his career is seriously damaged.  He isn't going to be a judge more likely than not, and he probably wouldn't be promoted.

              I don't assume motives, I wait for evidence first.  Any logical person would.

              •  You hold yourself to a higher standard than I do. (0+ / 0-)

                And, it's a higher standard than most expect on an internet forum.

                You're going to be frustrated if you enter a diary like this where everyone is commenting on the limited facts that are known. We're all making assumptions without all the facts. We're talking. That's all.

                But that's what this is. It's different from "every conversation you've had with other JAGs in this issue." Where the rules are naturally different.

                Joining a discussion like this to advise prudence and neutrality is also not logical.

                This isn't a court of law. It's a blog.

                "You don't have to be smart to laugh at fart jokes, but you have to be stupid not to." - Louis CK

                by New Jersey Boy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:23:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  C. HipHop, you probably weren't in a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JuliathePoet

        position to make decisions involving people who've sexually assaulted other people.  That's what's egregious about the the alleged behavior of the Lt. Col.  

        Not to excuse your unpalatable behavior.

        The opposite of pro is con. So what's the opposite of progress?

        by DSPS owl on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 11:46:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  SEX IS BANNED (0+ / 0-)

      In the modern workplace. Due to the political football that sex has become it is nearly impossible for folks to even think about hooking up at work. A minor tiff between two people negotiating on becoming an item often ends up with paper being dropped, usually by the woman. Then when the lady gets over that tiff you would be surprised at how hurt she is when her former suitor decides that any further courtship just isn't worth the possibility of losing his job. To her that was just a minor feeling she had to work thru & she forgets about the paper & the permanent black mark on her swain's record. This general pattern happens every day in the new adversarial relationship forced by Sexual Harassment  Rules. I am talking from personal experience & observation & not making it up. Sadly it is usually the woman who pays the heaviest emotional price; Men are used to women's ways & shrug it off but the women react too quickly & are badly hurt when the man just walks away. Back in the day many happy marriages were won in the workplace. That now lies firmly in the past. I am not being sexist  but trying to point out an unintended consequence.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site